Since we have a cycle of people making ignorant revisionist claims about why we dropped the bombs here is a link to a host of source documents. The site makes no claims as to whether we should or should not have used the bombs but ti does provide source documents to provide the critical information available before and after the war.

Since we have a cycle of people making ignorant revisionist claims about why we dropped the bombs here is a link to a host of source documents. The site makes no claims as to whether we should or should not have used the bombs but ti does provide source documents to provide the critical information available before and after the war.

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

Click to expand...

Quite simply, we were at war back when people fought wars to win. The estimated amount of casulties we would suffer invading mainland Japan was around a million.

You win a war by taking away the enemy's ability and will to fight while suffering the fewest casualties possible on your own side. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acoomplished just that.

Your "humanitarian" play by some arbitrary rules crap has resulted in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Fight to win or stay home.

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

Click to expand...

None of the documents linked to say anything about Japan willing to surrender EXCEPT the proposal they floated before and after the first bomb, that being " hey we will let you quit fighting us if you agree to just leave us with everything we still have" You know a militarist Government, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, The Penisular that has Singapore on it, occupation of part of China. No accountability for war crimes and no occupation. Now that WAS offered, if your delusional enough to think that was a reasonable offer your beyond help.

Quite simply, we were at war back when people fought wars to win. The estimated amount of casualties we would suffer invading mainland Japan was around a million.

You win a war by taking away the enemy's ability and will to fight while suffering the fewest casualties possible on your own side. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki accomplished just that.

Your "humanitarian" play by some arbitrary rules crap has resulted in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Fight to win or stay home.

Click to expand...

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.

Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.

Click to expand...

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

The political hypocrisy is astounding.

Click to expand...

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

Drinking much tonight?

We don't fight wars to "free" people. Gulf war 1? We fought for a corrupt, kuwaiti monarch. Vietnam? We fought for a corrupt, non-democratic south vietnamese regime. Sure, the communists were as bad or worse. But we weren't fighting for "freedom". Korea? We were facing down communist aggression. We weren't fighting for jeffersonian democracy.

What minuscle foreign aid we do give, is mostly military aid. And mostly to israel, egypt, and pakistan. I doubt any tax money that goes to feeding african kids costs you more than a few pennies a year in taxes.

We don't fight wars to "free" people. Gulf war 1? We fought for a corrupt, kuwaiti monarch. Vietnam? We fought for a corrupt, non-democratic south vietnamese regime. Sure, the communists were as bad or worse. But we weren't fighting for "freedom". Korea? We were facing down communist aggression. We weren't fighting for jeffersonian democracy.

What minuscle foreign aid we do give, is mostly military aid. And mostly to israel, egypt, and pakistan. I doubt any tax money that goes to feeding african kids costs you more than a few pennies a year in taxes.

Click to expand...

So anyone who doesn't agree with your cynicism must be drinking?

Without your spin, "facing down communist aggression" is basically fighting for freedom, right? Nobody said it has to be for Jeffersonian democracy.

So, in the case of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait, we fought against aggressors to free one side from the other. That you do not approve of the side we chose to defend is separate topic, and your points not without merit.

None of the documents linked to say anything about Japan willing to surrender EXCEPT the proposal they floated before and after the first bomb, that being " hey we will let you quit fighting us if you agree to just leave us with everything we still have" You know a militarist Government, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, The Penisular that has Singapore on it, occupation of part of China. No accountability for war crimes and no occupation. Now that WAS offered, if your delusional enough to think that was a reasonable offer your beyond help.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!